 Autor |
 Posten
|
 |
|
Luke Lieberman
beigetreten: Feb 13, 2003
Beiträge: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 14, 2005 - 06:37 AM
|
|
Haseeb - that would sort of make sense except that
North Korea didn't start producing nukes after Bush called the the axs of evil or the Iraq war or even after Clinton - they started violating their treaty during the 90's when Clinton was in office.
You are saying they thought Clinton was going to invade them after 50 years of status quo - I am sorry but that is rediculous - after Ragen didn't, after George Bush Sr. didn't North Korea signed a treaty with Clinton and started violating it a few years later.
The treaty they violated (and rendered null and void) garunteed we wouldn't attack them.
Kim wants Nukes because it makes him a big boy. People have to listen to him, he becomes a major player -
So he can make demands of the world - that is why he pursues such weapons - all the guy does is build weapons.
You are taking as a given that the US was going to invade Iran and NK - for one thing Iran still don't have nukes - and if they pursue them too hard they might find themselves in a confrontation with both the US and Europe.
North Korea was never going to be attacked because even without Nukes they have Biological and Chemical weapons, and missiles and could easily threaten Soel and Tokeyo.
He doesn't need Nukes - he is already too dangerous to touch militarily -
Why would the US push the military front when North Koreas economy is so fragile? The way Kim will fall will not be through military confrontation - but rather economic collapse - just like all the other former Soviet proxys.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Haseeb
beigetreten: Apr 21, 2003
Beiträge: 15
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: Afghanistan
Province/State: Kabol
Stadt: Kabul
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 14, 2005 - 08:54 AM
|
|
Luke: I talked of threats to the North Korean regime and I am sure you agree that there has been pressure on them and threats to them all through out their history. American tactical nuclear weapons were positioned in the Korean peninsula for long before George Bush in 1991 pulled them back. If they were not afraid of being invaded by the US or South Korea, they at least knew that their rivals had something they did not have. That was nuclear weapons.
Do you think they like the presence of US troops on their southern border, they do not. I understand that they have a lot to do with it, and much of US presence there has a history going back to the “containment” theory.
There is no doubt in my mind that Kim’s regime is not the ideal on earth or that it is dictatorial and repressive. However, to tell you – some consider some of his moves as Madness – and that is stupid. He is playing dirty politics and who doesn’t understand the fact that nuclear power will give him a lot of say in the region and help him survive. You talked about them violating the non-aggression pact and NPT in 1993 and that it “garunteed we wouldn't attack them.” It really did not guarantee anything. Senator John McCain was leading a prominent voice in the senate calling for additional military steps and further deployment in the Korean peninsula that will eventually lead to military actions against North Korea, especially precision targeting of the nuclear related sites. This happened before the Geneva 1994 bilateral agreement between North Korean the US in Geneva the so-called Agreed Framework. Therefore, when I talk of threats to them – the “Axis of Evil” remark by Bush is far away in my mind.
I think now they feel very secure of any US action against them than ever. Partly because of what they have in arsenal and partly because of what the US has been up to in Iraq. They understand the US public cannot allow its government to go on another search of “WMD”’s or bringing down of a “tyrant” after what they have achieved in Iraq until now. And what they have caused there.
AryaBrahmin:
I understand why India went nuclear, and I did not make any comment in my previous post that suggested they tested their missiles to warn Pakistan. Even though the Chinese THREAT was the main cause, you cannot neglect the fact that it had something to do with India’s long conflict with Pakistan. It always helps to have an upper hand on your rival in a conflict, India sought that upper hand. However, we all saw what “neutralize(ing) a very serious northern threat” lead the region to.
Pakistan became a declared nuclear power. The region became full of future threats, rather than “neutralized“of any threat. You know when the west was trying to contain communism, there was this one fear of one state after another falling in to the hand of communism. That fear did not turn up very accurate. However, I have such a fear about our region going nuclear one after the other. I again go back to my talk of Pakistan and Iran’s tensions. Iran cannot afford to have a neighbor, which it is in risk of conflict with, have an upper hand on it.
I agree that North Korea is a rough state. Though comparing them with Afghanistan under the Taliban does not sound very shrewd to me. Because, I think North Korean regime is far stronger than the Taliban. We at least had an active, if weak, opposition to the Taliban. The North Korean regime is not friend to anyone – little friendly with China- and the Taliban had their God Fathers on southern border of Afghanistan.so there is a lot different between the two.
On Iran: I do not know how sound it is to claim, “Iran's rulers are just marginally better than the Taliban.” I at least do not agree with you on it. The Iranian government is –somewhat- democratically elected. The country has been progressing over the years despite all the hurdles on its way. I understand that many Iranian want a more democratic and open society. That is true that they are not happy with much of what the government is doing. Especially what the Guardian Council is doing.
However, on their Nuclear debate: every Iranian I have met understands what they would lose if they were not allowed to have nuclear –peaceful and weapons producing- facilities. It is hard to share a border with Pakistan, have disputes with it and not be equally powerful. Who doesn’t want nuclear energy when they are capable of producing it? And they would ask you – why should we care about “world peace “ if others don’t . If others have the weapons, we have the ability to produce it and we shall do it. I find it hard to answer them. International politics is all about sustaining your interests and their argument is all focused at that factor. It doesn’t make sense to make a moral argument that more weapons is bad to them.
On Iranian-North Korean alliance – I do not see that happening unless US threatens them with force. Lets not make the mistake of connecting Iran with North Korea just as people did before the Iraq war, that of connecting Sadam with Alqaeda. There is a big difference in the ideology of the two countries.
Iran and India are getting closer that ever. Especially recently because of the energy deals in the region. I understand that if there were no US pressure on India, India would have already sealed the energy deal it now is negotiating with Iran. This indicates that at least your government does not see the Iranian government as a “threat to world peace”.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Sunil Swaminathan Iyer
beigetreten: May 13, 2005
Beiträge: 1
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 35
Country: India
Province/State: Karnataka
Stadt: Bangalore
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 14, 2005 - 09:53 AM
|
|
Excellent points Luke
Haseeb,
India went nuclear to neutralise a very serious northern threat. The Chinese stockpiled their nuclear weapons and positioned their warheads at two places.
1. Near the Soviet Border by the Dragon/Amur river
2. On the Tibetan plateau just above India
When the Soviet Union collapsed, many weapons were diverted to the Tibetan Plateau.
This is why it was essential that India test it nukes. The threat arose from China and not from Pakistan. Pakistan was never attacked by India and India has never been a threat to that nation.
India was attacked 4 times by Pakistan and soundly defeated Pakistan each time. All 4 wars used conventional warfare. So India's nukes had nothing to do with the Pakistanis.
North Korea is a rogue state much like Afghanistan was under the Taliban. Instead of religious zealots, the Koreans have to deal with a tyrannical fascist dictator.
You and I both know that Iran's rulers are just marginally better than the Taliban. The North Korea-Iran alliance is a threat to world peace.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Lindz
beigetreten: Jun 7, 2004
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Weiblich, 22
Country: United States
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 15, 2005 - 09:23 AM
|
|
luke
i know that NK and SK r still tech. @ war but i was just proving my point how north koreans r aggressive and freedom isnt necessarily what yong says he has
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
beigetreten: Feb 13, 2003
Beiträge: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 15, 2005 - 12:31 PM
|
|
Haseeb - they are a hostile and billigerent country.
They built their chemical and biological arsinal without worrying that the US had one or not.
Kim is simply trying to create the most dangerous army he can - and his countries biggest export is weapons technology so in a sense going nuclear gives him more to sell.
Whatever pretense you want to give him survival whatever - he just wants more weapons, and started building them the second he figured out how.
As for threats and troops on the southern boarder - those troops are there to twart another invasion attempt.
I am sure NK don't like the troops there - they would also like to overrun South Korea and unify Korean pennisula under Kim.
But these weapons have nothing to with security - survival perhaps - Kim wants leverage to bargan a better deal.
If McCain was argueing for strikes on their nuclear facilities I think we should have listened to him - it seems McCain had the forsite to reolize that Kim wanted to build weapons.
If they feel safe then they are fools - I don't imagine there has been a time when NK was less safe.
To begin - as I mentioned before - they always had a huge army, it was always difficult problem militarily.
their achillies heel is the economy. You are talking about survival - but if Kim for instance tests one of his weapons, or flouts the international community indefinately.
Eventually, instead of getting MORE food and Fuel - he could find himself cut off from Russia, China, and South Korea.
If China cuts off his fuel shipments he is in trouble.
As for security - He has simply raised the stakes of any such confrontation.
In the current sinero the US and its allies would have to completely decimate North Korea at the onset.
What I mean is that in a war, given the current senerio - the US would have to Nuke North Korea into complete submission at the beginning of the conflict to ensure they had no retalitory capability.
He just rose the stakes - not change the game.
The liklihood he could actually hit a US city is remote - a missle traveling across the entire Pacific Ocean would be tracked and shot down before it hit a US city.
So the danger is to Soel and Tokeyo. Which is why if the confrontation turned violent it would be a matter of complete annihilation.
As for Iran - Haseeb please do not be naive, much of what you have to say is wise -
but of course their is an alliance between NK and Iran - they are not planning vacations together or anything - but the simple answer is -
Where do you think Iran got most of its missile technology?
Those two governments have been smuggling stuff back and forth for a long time.
As for if Iran wants Nuclear weapons - yes of course they do. And I can understand why - that does not mean that we have to let them attain this technology.
The fact remains that their government is run by Islamic fundamentalists - and Iran sponsors more terrorist groups around the world then ANYONE.
That is the problem with Iran - and actually I don't think the Indian government has any intention of helping Iran go nuclear with our pressure or not.
It is dangerous.
As for what will stop them - I think American strikes on their nuclear facilities if that is really what is comes to.
but before that - the reason Iran is talking to Europe is because they want something - if Iran did not want something they never would have started barganing in the first place.
they also want to avoid sanctions by the security council.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Sunil Swaminathan Iyer
beigetreten: May 13, 2005
Beiträge: 1
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 35
Country: India
Province/State: Karnataka
Stadt: Bangalore
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 16, 2005 - 01:16 AM
|
|
Haseeb,
India has always had the upper hand over Pakistan. 1998 was before the Kargil victory and at that time, India has 3 decisive war victories over Pakistan plus it managed to secure the Siachen Glacier in 1987. If you look at conventional weapons, India had the upper hand by far. The nuclear tests didn't all of a sudden give India an upper hand over Pakistan.
As for Iran,
India is not helping them in their nuclear programme. Relations are good between the countries and that is in large part to the fact that there are strong links between the people in both countries, as is the case with Afghanistan and India. You see these relationships were established before the Arab-Islamic Conquests of Iran and Afgahnistan. This will always ensure that India stays friendly with both nations. BUT India will not support an Iran-North Korea military axis. Such an axis could lead to a nuclear disaster.
Is Afghanistan better off under the present regime or would you rather have Mullah Omar and the Taliban back?
I strongly believe that a regime change will do both North Korea and Iran a lot of good. They won't be pariah states and will be integrated into the global family.
I agree with Luke that Kim would try and forcibly occupy South Korea, if American troops left the country.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Haseeb
beigetreten: Apr 21, 2003
Beiträge: 15
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: Afghanistan
Province/State: Kabol
Stadt: Kabul
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 18, 2005 - 01:55 AM
|
|
Luke – I agree that the country is run by a hostile regime , and that they do want power –just as anyone does.
But, please do not be that simplistic about world affairs as you look in your previous post. And lets cut down from some over-confidence and focus on some realities that the US would face incase it embarks on a journey of fighting Kim or anyone in that part of the world. I do not see it logical to expect a global endorsement of US action against North Korea, even if proven that it has Nukes.
China has warned the US not to get too involved in its backyard several times. In the Korean War, the Vietnam War , the Taiwan issue etc. China would not stand still. Russia would not support the US in real terms. That is my take on it. None of these countries like the extension of US influences. The elimination of people like Kim is something that will guarantee US total influence in their backyards. They cannot afford to let it happen. They did not let it happen during the Korean War or the Vietnam War. They all know that Kim is a tyrant; his regime is bad – but not many care about this factor. All they want is a final hold on some influence in their own backyards, which will go away if there was not a rough state as North Korea. So dirty, it may look, but this is the reality . I at least think that is how it may be.
The world has not changed much in terms of the competition between Russia, China and the USA – though you might think, it has. The US cannot afford to take their support for granted. Not specially with the presence of someone like Vladimir Putin in Moscow , who once in every while comes up with the carving of returning back to the “glory” of the Soviet Union. And , not at a time when China has such a big economic leverage on the United States – with the European markets looking to open doors for Chinese products, that advantage is getting more influential. So, in my view – aggression and over-confidence won’t yield anything, the way to go is to get him (Kim) involved in the game – stop threatening him and open channels of direct/indirect talks with him where you don’t dictate terms on him , but you help him come down from what he has climbed. Isolating North Korea doesn’t do anything but a harm to its ordinary people – just as isolating Saddam didn’t ( though I might not agree with you in total on this , I know you believe it didn’t ) .
When you say “I think American strikes on their nuclear facilities if that is really what is comes to” - you shouldn’t forget that will mean a World War 3. You do not want to trigger World War 3. Imagine how worse it will be if it starts connected with nuclear stuff.
Though the cold war might be dead – the feelings of taking revenge and defeating the US are still fresh in some parts of the world. The US cannot and shall not under-estimate that.
On Iran: Could you please come up with some credible sources that indicate the relations between Iran and North Korea – just for my information.
“And I can understand why - that does not mean that we have to let them attain this technology. “
I know they should not have it, I know the world will be better with out a nuclear Iran , just as it would be if India , china , Pakistan , USA etc get rid of their nukes (I know it is unpractical , so ) – but I also know that Iran thinks it will be better with nukes.
They would not buy to arguments appealing to their fear. Don’t you think they feel your demands from them –if they comply with it- will make them weaker in comparison to other regional powers!
“The fact remains that their government is run by Islamic fundamentalists - and Iran sponsors more terrorist groups around the world then ANYONE.”
I do not think if going nuclear will be an issue with only the “Islamic fundamentalists” in power. Some of the most moderate voices in the Iranian parliament - ironic it maybe sounds to you-are the leaders of the pro-nuke debate. Don’t tell me that the solution is enforcing another regime change. Luke- this is not the way to go. I am sorry to tell you that the example of Iraq is not appealing to anyone in the region – they will not let their country be put on the path Iraq has been for the past 3 years.
The Iranian government, as I have previously said, is a sort-of-a-democracy. What you call “Islamic fundamentalists” government is comprised of some of the smartest minds of that country. The guardian council is set up of some religious figures, but that is an institution that will reform with the time – it is expected to behave far moderately during this years presidential elections. Just as an example that the government is not “fundamentalist” in total, Khatimi is a scholar, and nowhere close a fundamentalist .
And let us not get in to a debate about what caused the Iranian revolution and the formation of this system that the country is now run by.
As for “Iran sponsors more terrorist groups around the world then ANYONE” –
I do not know how credible this claim is. I am scared to see that things are looking like what it was during the run-up to the Iraq war, connecting Sadam to Al-Qaeda, WMDS, and blah blah blah. I just wonder how much those claims will sell this time around the world, in diplomatic circles as well as amongst ordinary people. And if it does any good to the argument-, Iran is not the only country that has supported certain militant groups. Many others have done the same thing, and maybe doing the same thing. So , this argument of terrorism and blah blah blah will not make a good reason to enforce a regime change , if that is being seen as a solution – which I don’t think it is.
Reforms in Iran look likely, I would love to see this optimism that many share – materialize. The last thing the region can afford is another war, or economic blockade on one of its biggest contributors. Just as it cannot afford to have another nuclear power. Nevertheless, I just wonder what will be more devastating for the region – one more addition to the list of three nuclear powers (China, India and Pakistan), which can be called a threat .Or, a war/blockade that will definitely cause direct and instant harm to the region. Not to mention , it will further esaclate the already growing tentions between the Islamic world and the USA. I see the latter one avoidable.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ha Thi Lan Anh
beigetreten: Dec 5, 2001
Beiträge: 72
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Weiblich, 24
Country: Canada
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 18, 2005 - 02:09 AM
|
|
wow this looks like a long interesting discussion...
if anyone has the time and energy to sort of wrap up a bit on what has been discussed/debated, whats going on here.. that'd be great!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
beigetreten: Feb 13, 2003
Beiträge: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 18, 2005 - 04:43 AM
|
|
Yeah China would more or less sit still
The times you were referring to before with Russia and China supporting NK was during the cold war - the situation has changed a bit - and while I don't expect Russia and China to sit on their hands - they would not fight us over the North Koreans -
But Haseeb - don't you see that is not the game here.
Here is how this breaks down in real terms - if NK has nukes then the US might well see fit to give South Korea Nukes - or at least to move Nukes into South Korea for retalitory purposes - now ask yourself does either China or Russia want South Korea or Japan to have Nuclear weapons - in addition to North Korea - I would say they do not.
Therefore they will be opposed to the North getting them - because it makes their neighborhood more dangerous.
There are alot of steps before this becomes a military confrontation - and China and Russia will play ball particularly if it means keeping US Nukes out of their backyard as you say.
As for if the world is with us - frankly bro it doesn't matter. The last time North Korea invaded the South there was a UN security Council resolution calling on member states to provide material support to the South - no one really answered that call but US.
What I have noticed about the UN - and its ultimate failing is that while everyone seems to have an opinion, very few will actually step up to the plate.
I agree that violent conflict must be avioded at all costs - but were it to break out it would not be WW3 - for a simple reason - North Korea has no allies.
It would be a very intense regoinal conflict but I doubt you would see conflicts in Europe or Africa as a result - no one is going to war with the US for North Koreas sake.
As for not threatening him - we HAD A TREATY - we were giving him food for Christ Sakes - we were giving his people more food than anyone else in the world -
He has an arsinal and an indoctrinated army that threatens EVERYONE ELSE.
You are saying we should coddle Kim like a child who scraped his knee.
be serious - the guy knows exactly what he is doing - HE is the one constantly escalating the situation - you are acting as though the US is escalating - he broke a treaty, pulled out of the non-proliferation accord he also signed - he is refusing to sit at the table
- even now he is insinuating that he is about to test a bomb because he is trying to provoke the US.
I am not opposed to one on one talks - in the context of larger 6 party talks - I agree the Bush adminstraition has to do something to break the deadlock - not sure what.
But as for bringing him down off his tree - bro he has been climbing that tree since Birth - only an act of God can bring that guy back down to earth - he is a meglomaniac.
As to Iran - I certainly don't think that regieme change in Iran should be imposed - I do think the democratic reformists should be supported.
But to be clear I have never suggested the US engauge itself in another war in Iran.
There are a few options that the US has in keeping Iran away from Nukes that don't involve regeime change.
And what is more I am generally opposed to war.
But Haseeb - I think you need to step back and understand something involving Iran - You were talking about WW3 - I don't think you reolize that if Iran gets Nukes WW3 is only a few breaths away.
Iran supports Hezbullah, and a number of other organizations that have the goal of destroying Israel. High ranking Iranian officials have spoken openly about using such a weapon on the "Zionist Entity".
Israel is a very small country, and the only Jewish country in the world - before they allow Iran to threaten them with Nuclear weapons they will attack Iran and bomb out their Nuclear facilities - Israel just bought 500 bunker busting bombs a few months ago - why do you think that is?
If Israel acts militarily to prevent Iranian nuclear development - WW3 will have begun.
That is one major reason why Iran must be kept from these weapons - a Nuclear attack on a country like Israel would destroy them - Iran having Nukes is a threat to Israel's very existance - and you should reolize by now that Israel will never tolerate such a threat.
the Iranians paraded ballistic missles through their capital last year with "Wipe Israel off the Map" written on them - think about it.
I am not the US government Haseeb - I never beleived any of that crap about Iraq/Al Qaeda - for a second - it was obvious to me that the Bin Laden and Hussien were natural enemies as Saddam had spent years fighting the Islamic theocracies.
But that doesn't mean that Iran doesn't have its hands in a number of webs - they openly support Hezbullah, Hamas and Jihad - that is not even a secret.
But if you want a detailing of Iran's ties to terrorism - I'll just let some Iranian exiles explain it to you.
http://www.iranianvoice.org/article5.html
As for Iran and North Korea selling weapons back and forth here -
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/nukes/noflashmap.html
"The export of ballistic missiles and related technology is one of North Korea's main sources of hard currency. Media reports estimate that Pyongyang earns an estimated $100 billion to $500 billion per year from missile sales alone -- and according to the CIA, that money fuels continued missile development and production. Here is a map showing where North Korea is exporting missiles and where it gets its missile technology."
Check out the map
"Iran: Iran has sought materials, training, equipment and knowledge from North Korea for its ballistic missiles and conventional weapons programs. According to the CIA, North Korea may be helping Iran develop its own self-sufficient ballistic missiles program. Iran also is suspected of having provided assistance to North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear programs."
I am not trying to say that these two governments are in lock step or best freidns or whatever - but they are trading alot of weapons and tech.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Yong Kyeong Roo
beigetreten: Apr 3, 2005
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 27
Country: North Korea
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 21, 2005 - 04:20 AM
|
|
Luke
Would you justify Israel bombing Iran in a pre-emptive manner? Do you think Russia will just allow that? Do you think Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states will allow Americans, who support Israel, to use their territory? You are right, this will lead to World War 3. It will be totally the fault of Israel and America.
Each and every country has a right to stockpile weapons if it means protecting itself and its existense. So North Korea has that right.
As for your attacks on Kim. Many more people in this world feel that Bush is a bigger threat to world peace than Kim. Bush has initiated more wars than Kim Jong Il. Bush threatens more people than Kim Jong Il. Bush goes around labelling nations as evil and threatens them.
America talks about democracy and supports Saudi Arabia and many other military states. So if dictator likes America then America doesn't wnat democracy in the country?
I much prefer Kim to Bush. We have a benevgolent autocrat and you have a belliegerent, violent and not very smart "democratically-elected president." The quote marks as we know how fair your elections were.
Please don't lecture our country. We want peace, so let us live peacefully. If Israel is not your master, then do something about their torture of poor people of Palestine. Stop Israel as they have nuclear weapons and will use them.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
beigetreten: Feb 13, 2003
Beiträge: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 22, 2005 - 08:03 AM
|
|
"Luke Would you justify Israel bombing Iran in a pre-emptive manner?" - Yong
That would depend on with what - certainly not with Nukes - certainly not civilian targets.
But the Israelis bombed Saddam in a pre-emptive strike in the 90's and put his nuclear program back 10 years and that was a good idea.
As for Russia, they would involve themselves in intruiges - but not open confrontation - because that would lead them into open confrontation with the US - which they do not want.
As for Kim and Bush - no, actually most of the World sees Kim as the more vile - only a smaller player - Bush and the US are the Superpower - so they are much more active on the world stage then Kim can hope to be.
But when was the last time people around the world saw the North Korean government do ANYTHING positive? Do anything but make threats - what positive contributions has your country made to the world???????????
Did you even send help to the Tsunami victims?
"America talks about democracy and supports Saudi Arabia and many other military states" - Yong
Saudi Arabia is not a military state - they have a very weak army - that is why the US had to defend them from Saddam in 90'
Also I am not certain what suport you think Saudi Arabia is getting - really it is more of a bussiness arrangement.
We have been pushing all of the countries in the middle east toward democracy - Egypt gets aid from us - and we used that to force Mubarrik to commit to the first presidential elections in Egypts history.
The Saudis are slowly moving toward democracy recently with municiple elections.
Kuwait - a key ally just gave their women the right to vote last week.
So frankly I don't know what point it is you think you are making.
As for Israel using its weapons - if they showed restraint in 67' and 73' when Egypts army was 30 miles from Tel Aviv - what evidence do you have that they would use them?
in short you have none.
As for your "intelligent, benevolent" leader - yes those concentraition camps where they test chemical weapons on children are the picture of benevolence.
And certainly very intelligent - Kim has managed to manuever his country into complete isolation and economic ruin.
The only thing your "brilliant" leader has managed to do is build weapons that threaten those around him, and use these weapons to blackmail countries into giving him aid.
If Kim is such a genius - why does he need Americas aid to FEED HIS PEOPLE?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Yong Kyeong Roo
beigetreten: Apr 3, 2005
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 27
Country: North Korea
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 22, 2005 - 10:37 AM
|
|
No Saudi Arabia is not a military state. It was an erroneous use of the word "other" but come on Luke, you know what I meant. How many military regimes get overt backing from America, irrespective of human rights records?
Saudi Arabia is the worst abuser of human and women's rights and America doesn't care as it gets oil from there. Saudi Arabia proliferates terrorism and I am sure that many groups like Hezbollah and Hamas gets money from Saudi Arabia. So why oh why are they let off? So that you have enough oil to drive from the Pacfic Coast to the Atlantic coast???
As for helping other nations.... Do you know that it was North Korea that spearheaded the movement to topple apartheid in South Africa? We, India, Cuba and Yugoslavia, were responsible for the embargo and support to Mandela.
You speak of imaginary concentration camps in my country. They don't exit. Don't take a greedy assylum-seeker's word for it. They will say any lie to get a green card.
I am sorry that your family suffered due to Nazi aggression, but my grandparents were also sent to labour camps by Imperialist Japan. The Japanese did similar things inspitred by Nazis, on a smaller scale in Korea. We are averse to foreign agression after what Japan did to us.
As for food, severe weather affected our production in the 1990s, but our harvests were excellent this year and above that there have been imports from Russia and China. We do not need food from America or anyone else.
You have much sympathy for Israel to defend itself, well, we also have the same right.
We both agree that war is not an option and that is a positive development. Please don't throw an evil tag on our leader when your leaders are hardly better.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
beigetreten: Feb 13, 2003
Beiträge: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 22, 2005 - 11:53 AM
|
|
"Saudi Arabia is the worst abuser of human and women's rights and America doesn't care as it gets oil from there. Saudi Arabia proliferates terrorism and I am sure that many groups like Hezbollah and Hamas gets money from Saudi Arabia." - Yong
Actually North Korea is the worst abuser because people are not even free to critisize the government and those who do are sent to prison - but I certainly agree that the Saudi's have a terrible record.
We don't have much leverage with them - you seem to think we have some godlike control over other countries.
certainly their religious intolorance is a matter of great concern.
And 15 of the 9/11 High jackers are from there - although that has alot to do with the simple fact that Radical Islamic terrorism is strongest in deeply religious Islamic countries - and Saudi Arabia is THE MOST religious.
But also I think you are failing to apprecaite that the Saudi's have recently gotten very tough with groups like Al Qaeda - not really for our sakes so much as their own - the Saudi government is a major target for Al Qaeda - they have taken 50 hostages at a time, suicide bombings, assasination attempts against the Saudi government.
This has lead to many crack downs and a purging of the "charities" which give money to terrorists.
Yes North Korea certainly has concentraition camps and I have provided ample evidence to this point.
As for not needing food from us - then why is your government demanding food AID as part of the anti-proliferation packadge?
Why is Kim demanding this from us if he doesn't need it?
Also - we shipped you 50,000 TONS of food last year - do you reolize that?
http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-05/21/content_444546.htm
As for why you shouldn't be able to build Nuclear weapons - how about the TREATY you signed with US which you are in clear violation of?
Don't you beleive that when two nations sign a treaty they are bound by the principals of honor and honesty to be faithful to the agreement?
Kim signed a treaty - then took our AID - and when Kim decided that he wanted more - he just broke the treaty under the false pretense that he needs Nukes for "defense" even though he has never needed them before and his country has never been attacked since the Korean war 50 years ago.
It is blatant dishonesty and blackmail.
Now - I fully apprecaite what the Japanese did to East Asia in the 40's and what happened was very unfortunate and unforgivable.
Yong do you know who stopped the Japanese and made them pay for their crimes - the USA.
Do you know why Japan does not have an army to threaten you with now - the USA.
But really the reason Bush is nowhere near as evil as Kim is really simple -
I can walk down the street - walk up to a police officer, and tell him that I think Bush is a stupid crazy punk -
do you know what would happen - half the time the cop would probably agree with me.
You see I live in a free country. I can say and do what I want.
I am free to be whatever I want - the government does not tell me what my job is - I decide that for myself.
We have not had ANY kind of military confrontation with Mexico or Canada in 100 years, not even a shadow of one.
North America is probably the most peaceful place on earth. We don't have a heavily fortified boarder because no one is threatening eachother the way you guys threaten the South Koreans.
Can you critisize Kim that way? go up and tell a north korean cop that Kim's a bitch? Are you free to do this? what would happen if you did?
Are you free to organize a political party that opposes Kim's actions?
I can walk up to the White House gate and scream at Bush if I so desire because I do not live in an Orwellean police state.
Kim puts his critics into prison. There are thousands of refugees fleeing over the boarder in search of economic opportunity and basic freedom.
Kim has absulutely no regard for civil rights, human rights, or basic human freedoms.
He is developing an arsinal of chemical and biological weapons -
and he doles out food and medicine based on how loyal you are.
this is fundamentally WRONG - people are not ANTS, they are individuals - and should be free to be so.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Yong Kyeong Roo
beigetreten: Apr 3, 2005
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 27
Country: North Korea
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 26, 2005 - 01:06 AM
|
|
It is you who are WRONG about our benevolent leader, Luke!
Kim does not dole out food and medicine based on loyalty. My family has no connection with the great leader and we still live in comfort like most people in my country.
Food shortages occur when adverse temperature affects crops and harvest. We will be sufficient this year.
Kim is better than Americans who violate all humna rights in Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo Bay. It is Muslim prisoners of America who have no rights.
We prefer Kim to Bush anyday.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arul
beigetreten: Apr 4, 2005
Beiträge: 10
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 29
Country: Sri Lanka
Province/State: Amparai
|
Re: Proliferation of WMDs
May 28, 2005 - 07:32 AM
|
|
Originally posted by YongKyeong
Kim is better than Americans who violate all humna rights in Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo Bay. It is Muslim prisoners of America who have no rights.
wt about dalit human abuses - Kashmir muslim abuses in India? why onlh blame America?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
